Facts and myths on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria

The ease of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards has gradually formed part of the criteria used in evaluating the extent of arbitration penetration in a country; in assessing the level of arbitration practice as well as determining whether a jurisdiction is arbitration friendly or not.

Despite Nigeria’s federal system of government, it has a unified system of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Questions have often arisen as to whether foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Nigeria, the length of time it takes to enforce a foreign arbitral award, and whether Nigeria is a party to the New York Convention.

Granted, issues have arisen in the past when the willingness of Nigerian courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards was tasked to the limits; nevertheless a careful perusal of available decided cases relating to enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria would seem to suggest that some information in the public domain cannot be supported by any empirical evidence. In short, it is a situation of mixed facts and myths.

This article examines the law and practice relating to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria with a view to separating fact from myth. In addition, it will also attempt to provide insight into the various steps that should be taken to avoid difficult challenges on the road to successful enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria.

Legal regimes relating to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria

The following are the legal regimes applicable to the enforcement foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria:

Action upon the award at Common Law;

Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgements Act, 1922;

Foreign Judgements ( Reciprocal Enforcement) Act, 1961;

Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, (New York Convention) 1958;

International Centre for Settlement of Investment Dispute (Enforcement of Awards) Act, 1967;

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988; and

The Limitation Law.

Action upon the award at common law

A foreign arbitral award can be enforced in Nigeria by suing upon the award at common law. It is immaterial that the award was made in a country that has no reciprocal arrangement with Nigeria.

Where the award is made in a country that has no reciprocal arrangement with Nigeria, a party who seeks the enforcement of the award will bring a fresh action in Nigeria with the foreign award itself being the cause of action.

In Toepher of New York v Edokpolor (trading as John Edokpolor & Sons) the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that a foreign award could be enforced in Nigeria by suing upon the award.

To succeed in the action, the plaintiff must prove the existence of the arbitration agreement, the proper conduct of the arbitration in accordance with the agreement; and the validity of the award.

The Defendant may, however, resist the enforcement of the award by challenging the conduct of the arbitration or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

Where a party intend to bring such an action in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the action may be commenced under the undefended list summary procedure.

Similarly, where a party intends to bring the action in Lagos, the action may be commenced under the summary judgment procedure. It has been widely reported that this procedure could take about a year or more to conclude; depending on the circumstances of the case.

2. Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1922

The Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1922 was originally made as an Ordinance, to facilitate the reciprocal enforcement of judgements obtained in Nigeria and in the United Kingdom and other parts of Her Majesty’s Dominions and Territories under Her Majesty’s protection; now commonwealth countries.

The application of the Act is extended to an award in proceedings or an arbitration if the award has, in pursuance of the law in force in the place where it was made, become enforceable in the same manner as judgment given by the court of that place.

The method of enforcement of a judgment under this Act is by simple registration in the High court; and on the strength of the extension of the application of the Act to arbitral awards, a simple registration of the award in the High Court would suffice; provided the registration is done within twelve months after the date of the judgment or award.

The effect of the Act on foreign judgments sought to be enforced in Nigeria was considered extensively in a recent case by the Nigerian Supreme Court.

In that case, Marine and General Assurance Vs Overseas Union & 7 ors; the appellant a Nigerian Company, entered into an insurance contract with the respondent companies. The Respondents had obtained judgment from the Queen’s Bench Division of the Commercial Court of England on the 25 May 1990 for the sum of GBP 427.77 and USD 92,470.80.

Thereafter, the respondents by an application dated 18May, 1994 sought to have the judgment registered as a judgment of the High Court of Lagos State of Nigeria, pursuant to the Foreign Judgments/Reciprocal Enforcement Act, Cap 152 Laws of the Federation 1990.

The case proceeded all the way to the Supreme Court where counsel to the appellants further sought to rely on the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1922.

The Supreme Court following its earlier decision in Macaulay Vs RZB Austria, held among other things that the laws applicable to the proceedings for the registration of that foreign judgment in Nigeria is the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act, 1922, Cap 175, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Lagos, 1958; and the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1961, Cap 152, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990.

2.1. Refusal of Registration and Enforcement

Section 2 of the Act provides that no judgement or award shall be ordered to be registered, if the court which delivered the judgement lacked jurisdiction, the judgement or award was obtained by fraud, an appeal is pending on the judgement; or it is contrary to the public policy of Nigeria.

3. Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1961

The Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1961 appears to be an improvement under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1922 regime.

Firstly, the scope of operation of the 1961 Act is enlarged to include countries other than Great Britain or its Dominions and Territories; now commonwealth countries.

The major determinant of countries who would benefit from the Act appears to be based essentially on reciprocal arrangement with Nigeria. Once the Minister of Justice is satisfied that any foreign country would accord judgments given in superior courts of Nigeria substantial reciprocity treatment; then the Minister of Justice will make an order to enforce judgments or awards made in that country in Nigeria .

Under this regime, for a judgment or award obtained in a foreign country to be enforced in Nigeria; all that is required is for the judgment or award to be registered first in a High Court of a State, or the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja or the Federal High Court.

Furthermore, the judgment or award must be final and conclusive as between the parties and there must be payable thereunder a sum of money, not being a sum in respect of a fine or other penalty. Furthermore, the period within which an award must be registered for enforcement under Section 4 of this Act has been increased to six years.

The registered judgment or award may be set aside for the following reasons that;

(a) The Act has not been complied with, or

(b) The original court (that is the court by which the judgment was given) had no jurisdiction;

(c) The judgment was obtained by fraud;

(d) The enforcement would be contrary to public policy of Nigeria; and

(e) The rights under the judgment are not vested in the person by whom the application for registration was made.

4. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards of June 10, 1958 (New York Convention)

Nigeria became a party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention) in 1970. The New York Convention (NYC) subsequently became part of Nigeria’s domestic law in 1988 through the promulgation of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2, (ACA).

In accordance with Section 52 of the ACA, the NYC will apply to any award made in Nigeria or in any contracting state; provided that such contracting state has reciprocal legislation, recognising the enforcement of arbitral awards made in Nigeria in accordance with the provisions of the NYC.

However, Nigeria made reservation to the effect that the NYC shall apply only to differences arising out of a legal relationship which is contractual. Therefore any arbitral award which relates to a non legal dispute or which does not arise from a contractual relationship cannot be enforced in Nigeria under the NYC.

Nigeria’s status as a party to the NYC was tested by the Nigerian Supreme Court in 1974 in the case between Murmansk State Steamship Line Vs Kano Oil Millers Limited.

A summary of the facts of the case is that; the Claimant, a Russian company sought to enforce an arbitral award made by a Moscow arbitral tribunal against the Respondent Nigerian company in Nigeria.

The award was as a result of a dispute arising out of a charter-party agreement between the Claimant and the Respondent; whereby the Respondent was to provide a cargo of groundnuts for shipment in a ship to be provided by the Claimant.

The Supreme Court refused enforcement on three grounds, namely:

That enforcement proceedings was statute barred; because the applicable limitation law provides for six years within which enforcement proceedings ought to commence; whereas enforcement was commenced eight years after;

That even if Nigeria became a party to the NYC in March 1972 according to the Claimant counsel, the action must fail because the Claimant commenced the action in February, 1972; and

That the Claimant did not seek leave of the relevant High Court in accordance with the applicable arbitration law relating to enforcement of arbitral awards.

No doubt Nigeria became a party to the NYC in 1970, contrary to March 1972 erroneously cited by the Claimant counsel in the case. It is also a compelling fact that a condition precedent to the application of the NYC by the Nigerian courts is that the NYC must be domesticated by a Nigerian statute so that it will become part of Nigerian Law. This had not been done in February 1972 when the Claimant commenced the action for enforcement. The NYC was domesticated in Nigeria in 1988; and it was only from 1988; that the NYC became part of Nigerian law enforceable in Nigeria by Nigerian courts.

4.1. Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement under the NYC

Generally the courts may refuse recognition or enforcement, if the enforcing party suffers from incapacity, or the arbitration is invalid under the relevant or applicable law or for lack of proper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or of the arbitral proceedings or a party’s inability to present his case or the award deals with an extraneous dispute or matters outside the scope of the submission or the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted or its procedure was not in accordance with the parties agreement or the award had not become binding or has been set aside or suspended by the relevant court or if the award is contrary to the public policy of Nigeria.

Murmanskdid not offer the courts an excellent opportunity to examine any of the grounds for refusal of enforcement under the NYC, because it was decided on other grounds other than those laid down by the NYC for refusal of recognition and enforcement.

It is a logical conclusion from the court’s reasoning, that it would be frivolous to examine any of the grounds for refusal for enforcement under the NYC, when the NYC itself was not yet applicable in Nigeria at the time the action for enforcement was commenced.

The Convention on the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), was formulated by the Executive Directors of the World Bank for member governments of the World Bank in 1965; for the purpose of settlement of disputes arising from investments between contracting states and nationals of other contracting states through arbitration and conciliation.

Nigeria ratified the ICSID Convention on 23 August, 1965. In order to provide for the enforcement of ICISD awards in Nigeria, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (Enforcement of Awards) Act,was enacted on 29th November 1967.

Section 1 of the Act provides that an ICSID award shall be enforced in Nigeria as if it were an award contained in a final judgment of the Supreme Court, if a copy of such an award, duly certified by the Secretary-General of the Centre is filed in the Supreme Court of Nigeria by the party seeking recognition and enforcement.

Enforcement in the Supreme Court obviously eliminates challenges and appeals associated with enforcement in courts of first instance and the Court of Appeal.

6.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act(ACA), was adapted from the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Arbitration of 1985. The ACA provides a unified legal framework for the settlement of disputes by arbitration.

Section 51 of the ACA deals with enforcement of awards generally, both domestic and international or foreign. The section provides that an arbitral award shall, irrespective of the country in which it was made, be recognised as binding and upon application in writing to the court, be enforced by the court.

Accordingly, the following documents shall accompany the written request to the court by a party seeking enforcement:

The duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy;

The original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy, and

A duly certified transaction of the award, where it was not made in English language.

Enforcement of arbitral awards under this section of the ACA is not dependent on reciprocity. Since enforcement of awards under this section is not based on reciprocity; the question is, can a non NYC country award be enforced in Nigeria?

The answer is in the affirmative. Consequently, for non-NYC awards or awards excluded by the reciprocity and commercial provisos of the NYC, or the reservations expressed by Nigeria in the NYC; Section 51 will be available to a party seeking the recognition and enforcement of such an award to apply in writing to the court and supply the necessary documents required.

6.1. Grounds for Refusing Recognition and Enforcement under the ACA

The same grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement under the NYC appears to be the same in Nigeria under the ACA; thus the court may refuse recognition or enforcement, if the enforcing party suffers from incapacity, or the arbitration is invalid under the relevant or applicable law or for lack of proper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or of the arbitral proceedings or a party’s inability to present his case or the award deals with an extraneous dispute or matters outside the scope of the submission or the arbitral tribunal was not properly constituted or its procedure was not in accordance with the parties agreement or the award had not become binding or has been set aside or suspended by the relevant court.

Furthermore, where the subject matter of the dispute is not arbitrable in Nigeria or the award offends the public policy of Nigeria, the award may be refused enforcement.

7. The Limitation Law

Nigeria operates a federal system of government in which both the federal government and the thirty-six state governments plus the Federal Capital Territory make laws in their respective legislative lists.

Items falling under the exclusive legislative list of the constitution are under the exclusive powers of the federal government to make Laws, while both the federal and the states governments have concurrent powers to make laws for items under the concurrent legislative list of the constitution.

Any item not appearing under either the exclusive list or concurrent list becomes the residual list which falls within the powers of the states to legislate upon.

It appears that the power to make Limitation Laws fall within the legislative competence of the states; because limitation is neither in the exclusive legislative list nor concurrent legislative list of the Nigerian constitution.

Consequently, the time bar applicable in any given situation would depend on the Limitation Law of the state in which the award is being enforced; and advisedly the state where the unsuccessful party has asset should be taken into consideration.

In Murmansk State Steamship Line Vs Kano Oil Millers LimitedMurmansk commenced the enforcement proceedings in Kano State where Kano Oil Millers was located and apparently had assets; nevertheless Murmansk lost because the court held among other things that Murmansk failed to comply with the Limitation Law of Kano State.

8. Conclusion

A progressive development of the laws on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria can be gleaned from the early Common Law position which required a party seeking enforcement to sue upon the award. This would entail proof of the existence of the arbitration agreement, the proper conduct of the arbitration in accordance with the agreement and the validity of the award.

It appears that in order to ameliorate the hardship on parties seeking enforcement under the Common Law, the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act 1922 was promulgated. This Act improved on the Common Law procedure of suing upon the award by prescribing simple registration of the award in the High Court by the successful party seeking enforcement.

However, it is of limited application, in the sense that it is restricted to reciprocal enforcement to the United Kingdom and other parts of Her Majesty’s Dominions and Territories under Her Majesty’s protection.

The limited application of the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1922 appears to have triggered the promulgation of Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1961; which extended the benefit of enforcement to countries other than the United Kingdom and its Dominions and territories (now commonwealth countries); as well as extended the limitation period of enforcement from 12 months to six years.

More support for enforcement of foreign awards was given to Nigeria’s efforts at creating an enabling environment for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards when Nigeria became a party to the New York Convention in 1970; which was domesticated in Nigeria in 1988 through a local legislation. The New York Convention appears to be the most widely accepted piece of legislation in the area of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards; globally.

Due to the compelling influence of the UNCITRAL Model Law 1985 and UNCITRAL Model Rules 1976 in the field of international arbitration, Nigeria adapted both legislations in 1988.The result being that Nigeria created another window in the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1988.

The 1988 Act allows for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Nigeria, irrespective of the country the award was made; because the enforcement of awards under the 1988 Act does not depend on reciprocity.

However parties seeking enforcement of foreign arbitral awards should not only be mindful of the relevant enforcement of arbitral awards laws, but also the limitation laws of the relevant State of enforcement in Nigeria.

Furthermore, information on enforcement of arbitral awards accessed from the internet, business journals and other professional publications should be cross-checked with relevant agencies or independent international arbitral institutions in Nigeria.

For instance, part of the major functions of the Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, Lagos, (the Centre), an independent international arbitration institution established in Nigeria by the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organisation, is to assist in the enforcement of arbitral awards.

The Centre will render assistance in the area of providing information relating to the requirements for registration of awards in Nigeria and other sub–Sahara African countries as well as other relevant information relating to the enforcement of awards.

Enjoyed this article?

Subscribe to CDR

You get access to hundreds of articles like this one simply by subscribing to the CDR website.

x
This website uses cookies, which we use to improve and maintain the site.
Please click the button to accept our cookies.
If you don't click the accept button and continue to use the site,
we'll assume you're happy to accept the cookies anyway.
ACCEPTLEARN MORE

The copyright in the Website is owned by Global Legal Group and protected by United Kingdom and International copyright laws. Any party using or accessing the Websites (“User”) is entitled to copy any such information for their own personal use but may not re-publish, store or re-produce any such information in any manner, including without limitation electronic reproduction by “uploading” or “downloading”, without the prior written consent of Global Legal Group. Any unauthorised downloading, re-transmission or other copying or modification of any of the contents of the Websites may be in breach of statutory or common law rights which could be the subject of legal action. Global Legal Group disclaims all liability which may result from any unauthorised reproduction or use of the information on the Websites. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Global Legal Group.

The right to use the information collated on the Websites are owned by Global Legal Group. Any User extracting or re-utilising a substantial part of the information collated on the Websites or repeatedly extracting or re-utilising parts of the information, without the prior written consent of Global Legal Group will be infringing its database rights.

The Websites must not be accessed, monitored or copied by any manual process or by any robot, spider or other automated device.

2 INFORMATION DISPLAYED OR POSTED

Users understand and agree that the Websites are provided “as available” and that Global Legal Group assumes no responsibility for, inter alia, (1) any service disruptions or interruptions; (2) the unavailability of particular features or services; (3) the inability to access the Websites; (4) the failure or inability to post materials on the Websites; (5) the deletion of materials posted on the Websites; and (6) the failure to store materials posted on the Websites.

All information on the Websites including any content posted on the Websites ("User Content"), text, graphics and links is provided on an “as is” basis excluding any warranty whatsoever express or implied including but not limited to warranties of satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose or freedom from computer viruses.

Users understand and agree that any User Content is the exclusive responsibility of the person who posted or uploaded such User Content, and that Users will be solely responsible for any User Content they may upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit via the Websites. Users acknowledge that Global Legal Group is not responsible for, does not control, does not endorse and does not verify the User Content and Global Legal Group makes no guarantee regarding the reliability, service, accuracy, legitimacy or quality of any such User Content. Users agree that they will bear any and all risk of reliance on the accuracy, validity or legitimacy of such User Content. Under no circumstances will Global Legal Group be liable in any way to Users for any User Content, including but not limited to, errors or omissions in any content or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of any content posted or otherwise transmitted via the Website.

Users acknowledge that Global Legal Group has the ability to pre-screen User Content and has the right (but not the obligation) to amend, edit, and remove or restrict access to any such User Content in its sole discretion and without notice or compensation.

Users acknowledge and agree that Global Legal Group may preserve or disclose any User Content if it reasonably believes disclosure is required by law or in the good faith belief that such preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to (1) comply with legal process; (2) enforce these Terms; (3) respond to claims that any User Content violates the rights of third parties; or (4) protect the rights, property, or personal safety of Global Legal Group staff, its users and the public.

By posting User Content on the Website a User waives any moral rights which he/she may have with regard to the User Content.

Each User is wholly responsible and liable for the User Content which that User posts on the Website.

Users acknowledge and agree to strictly comply with the rules set by Global Legal Group in relation to the posting of User Content on the Website ("Rules").

Users must not:

• post, link to or otherwise publish any User Content containing any form of advertising or promotion for goods and services or any chain content or “spam”;

• post, link to or otherwise publish any User Content which contains any confidential information of or about a third party except with such third party’s explicit consent/authority;

• post, link to or otherwise publish any User Content that is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, libellous, indecent, or which infringes copyright or any other rights of any third party or which contain any form of illegal content;

• disguise the origin of any User Content;

• impersonate any third party or misrepresent any affiliation to any third party;

• collect or store other Users’ personal data;

• restrict or inhibit any other User from using the Website;

• infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or image/publicity rights;

• upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit any material that (1) is unlawful, threatening, abusive, defamatory, obscene, or invasive of another’s privacy; (2) consists of instructional information on illegal activities, including but not limited to, hacking and cracking; (3) violates or infringes in any way the proprietary rights of others, including, without limitation, software, music, photographs, text, videos or artwork; (4) constitutes pornography, or sexual material of an obscene nature that violates the law in a relevant jurisdiction; (5) is the private information of another; (6) Users do not have the right to upload or post due to contractual or other legal obligations; or (7) contains software viruses, Trojan horses or other computer code, files or programmes designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment.

When posting User Content on the Website the User agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Global Legal Group from all losses, damage, costs and expenses (including legal expenses) arising out of any User Content posted by the User on the Website.

General

The Website contains User Content over which Global Legal Group has limited control and as a result Global Legal Group cannot guarantee the accuracy or integrity or quality of User Content. Some Users may breach the Rules and post User Content on the Website which is misleading, untrue or offensive.

Users must bear all risk in relation to the use of the Websites and should not rely on any User Content in making (or not making) any specific decision or in taking (or not taking) any specific course of action.

By submitting User Content to the Websites, the User is granting Global Legal Group a perpetual, royalty free, non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, translate, make available, distribute and sub-licence the User Content in whole or in part and in any form.

Global Legal Group reserves the right to contact a User by e-mail with regard to the User’s use of the Websites.

Users are solely responsible for their interactions with other Users. Global Legal Group reserves the right, but has no obligation, to monitor disputes between Users.

Users agree that Global Legal Group may establish, in its sole discretion, any limitations, conditions or rules concerning the use of the Websites, including, for example, the maximum number of posts (of User Content) on the Websites in a given day, the number of days that post will be available, or the maximum size of a given post. Users acknowledge that Global Legal Group has the right to change these general practices and limits at any time, in its sole discretion, with or without notice.

If any User believes that User Content posted on the Websites infringes his/her/its legal right(s), said User should notify Global Legal Group immediately by contacting Global Legal Group by e-mail at alan.falach@glgroup.co.uk

All content is subject to modification from time to time without notice.

3 TRADE NAMES

Certain names, words, titles, phrases, logos, icons, graphics and designs displayed on the Websites constitute trade names or registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks of Global Legal Group. The display of any trade names or registered or unregistered trademarks or service marks on the Websites does not imply any licence has been granted to any third party in respect of the same. The appearance or absence of products, services, companies, organisations, home pages or other websites does not imply any endorsement or non-endorsement thereof by Global Legal Group. All rights not expressly granted are reserved by Global Legal Group.

4 LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES

Global Legal Group shall not be liable for any direct or indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages including any loss of profits, business, revenue or goodwill arising from the use of or access to or inability to use or access, interruption or availability of the Websites, its operation or transmission, computer viruses, loss of data or otherwise in respect of its use or the downloading or use of any software, including pdf files, made available by Global Legal Group on the Websites. Any User using or accessing the Websites shall indemnify Global Legal Group from and against all claims, expenses, losses or liabilities (including professional fees and expenses) in connection with any claim by a third party relating to the use or downloading of the software or data or arising from such use or downloading.

Global Legal Group is not responsible for invalid destinations or transmission errors in, corruption of, or the security of information carried over telecommunications carriers’ or other providers’ facilities. Global Legal Group has no liability for faulty or interrupted communication links.

5 WARRANTIES

Each User understands and agrees that:

5.1 use of the Websites is at his/her/its sole risk. The Websites as stated above are provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis. Global Legal Group expressly disclaims all warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.

5.2 Global Legal Group makes no warranty that (1) the Websites will meet the requirements of any User; (2) the Websites will be uninterrupted, timely, secure or error free; (3) any information that may be obtained from the use of the Websites will be accurate or reliable.

5.3 Any material downloaded or otherwise obtained through the use of the Websites is obtained and used at a User’s sole risk and discretion and each User will be solely responsible for any damage to their computer system or loss of data that results from the download of any such material.

5.4 No advice or information, whether oral or written, obtained by Users through or from the Website shall create any warranty by Global Legal Group.

5.5 Global Legal Group excludes any warranty that the Website will be error free, free of computer viruses or uninterrupted.

6 LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES

Global Legal Group accepts no responsibility or liability in respect of any material displayed on any third party websites which are not under its control. Users acknowledge and agree that Global Legal Group shall not be responsible or liable, directly or indirectly for any damage or loss caused by or in connection with use of or reliance on any material displayed on a third party website not under Global Legal Group control.

7 CHANGES TO THE TERMS

Global Legal Group reserves the right to make changes to any part of the Website and due to its policy of updating and improving the Website Global Legal Group may wish to change the Terms. Global Legal Group reserves the right to modify the Website and these Terms relating to the use of and access to the Website without prior notice. The amended Terms shall become effective immediately upon the posting of the amended Terms on the Website and the use of the Website by any User on or after any such effective date shall constitute acceptance of such amended Terms.

Users agree that Global Legal Group, in its sole discretion, may terminate a User’s ability to use the Website, and remove and discard any User Content, for any reason whatsoever. Users agree that any termination of their access to the Website may be immediate and without prior written notice.

8 GOVERNING LAW

The Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Welsh and if any User intends to take legal action in relation to the Terms and/or the Website such User agrees that the England and Welsh courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction.

9 GENERAL

If any provision of the Terms is found to be invalid the validity of that provision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of the Terms which shall remain in full force and effect.

No User may assign, sub-licence or otherwise transfer any of his or her rights under the Terms.

If Global Legal Group or any User fails to exercise any right or remedy available under the Terms such failure does not constitute a waiver of that right or remedy.

The Headings in the Terms are for convenience only and have no legal meaning or effect.